Haringey Council (202000931)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000931

Haringey Council

29 January 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint regards the landlord’s handling of issues reported by the resident relating the implementation of an intergenerational living project (the project) jointly managed by the landlord, the local council and a charity and the impact it has had on him.

Jurisdiction

1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
3. The resident (through his representative) has queried the implementation and continuation of the project. Whilst this Service is able to consider the impact of the project on the resident, to the extent where the issues raised fall within the responsibility of his landlord’s management of the property, it is not able to consider the actual initiation and running of the project. This is because the project is an initiative of the council in its capacity as a local authority.
4. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.’ Thus, any issues raised by the resident regarding the council’s actions where it has discharged its functions as a local authority are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. As there are several matters in this case which fall within the category described here, the issue has been more thoroughly explained in the section on Assessment and Findings. 

Background and summary of events

5. This report is not intended to provide a blow-by-blow account of events in this case or to narrate the contents of every piece of correspondence exchanged by the parties. Therefore, only key events and correspondence which largely represent the core issues of this case have been narrated in below, for clarity and proper assessment of the substantive matters which resulted in the complaint. It must be noted that there was an exceptionally high frequency of correspondence by the representative. 
6. The resident is a tenant of the property owned by the landlord. His daughter has represented him in this matter, conducted the complaint on his behalf and contacted this Service regarding the issue. As she represents him, some actions of the representative may be attributed to the resident in this report. It is also necessary to clarify that another resident’s representative has been involved in corresponding with the landlord on the issue and some communications have involved this other party. However, as this complaint was not made as a group complaint the communications discussed here will be those solely regarding the resident whose complaint was referred to this Service. Correspondence relating to other residents have been considered in assessing this case but will not be narrated.
7. The landlord is a local council, but the property is managed by its Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO). Some of the issues raised in this complaint relate to actions of the ALMO, but as it is an agent of the council no differentiation will be made between the two in narrating the landlord’s actions. However, distinction will be made between the landlord acting as a housing provider and the council undertaking its functions as a local authority, as these roles are handled by different departments.
8. On 25 November 2019, the representative made a formal complaint to the council regarding the intergenerational living project in the block, in an email which she also copied to the landlord. She stated that she had expressed her dissatisfaction with the level of concern being shown to elderly residents of the block including her father. She had been advised by the landlord to speak to the council, but the council had given a dismissive response. The resident had objected to the project and was signatory to a petition, but his views had been overlooked.
9. She also stated that following the implementation of the project her father had been distressed by several incidents including a leak and constant noise nuisance. He was almost knocked over by the guest of a young resident using an electric scooter. The landlord took no action when it was reported. Several other residents also had various complaints regarding actions by the young people, including keeping the laundry room untidy.
10. She had been informed that a park for children was going to be included in the communal garden and believed this would make it difficult for the resident and other elderly tenants to use. The block was sheltered housing for residents of 55 years and above, thus, the project was a breach of his tenancy. She wanted to know why the petition had not been upheld; all the residents had not been included in the decision making; carers and family members of the elderly residents had not been involved; they had been told that it was a trial, but more young people had moved in.
11. The representative stated that there was a legal duty to monitor and publish the impact of the project on the elderly residents and regular reports should have been made by the manager. She also stated that she was aware that the project had been objected to by another housing block.
12. The representative reported to the landlord further, in November 2019, that the resident had been experiencing noise nuisance from his neighbour, a young resident living in the flat above. Furthermore, contrary to the information given regarding the terms of the occupancy by the young residents, the neighbour above was having daily visits by her partner and this was contributing to the noise.
13. The representative also reported noticing that a fence in the back garden had been removed and this was leaving the residents at risk of intruders gaining access to the block. The fence had been removed due to works being undertaken to the garden are and she stated that an unknown young person had been seen in the garden and must have gained entry through the open fence area. She expressed her dissatisfaction that risk assessments were not being undertaken and safety policies were not being observed. The landlord clarified that, although it would be speaking to the contractors and updating residents in writing about the situation, the area was secure. In addition to the communal areas, residents had pull cords within their properties, to enable contact with the Community Alarm Service.
14. In early December 2019 reports were made to the landlord and council by the representative regarding her dissatisfaction with the implementation of the project in the block and some incidents relating to the young residents. These include concerns about the safety of elderly residents like her father as it was not always clear who was gaining access into the block. At her request, the landlord and council held a meeting with the representative on 9 December 2019 to discuss her concerns and she followed this up with an email of 12 December 2019 outlining several queries which had been raised during the meeting.
15. The next few paragraphs of this report narrate the points of the meeting of 9 December 2019 as stated in the landlord’s email of 19 December 2019. Each point is followed by the representative’s response, as detailed in her email to the landlord of 1 January 2020.
16. The landlord stated that the project was a two-year trial of intergenerational living to provide supported housing in sheltered accommodation for a maximum of 12 young parents. It was aimed at exploring the benefits and challenges of the different generations living together. It began on 1 July 2019 and would end on 1 July 2021. Seven properties in the block had been allocated for the young families. It sent information documents to the residents of the block in August 2018 and January 2019 and offered to meet with any resident who wished to discuss it, but this was taken up by a singular resident. It had become aware that the resident had not received these documents. 
17. On the points above, the representative stated that she had spoken with several other residents and some of them had not received the document either and were not aware of them. Some of them, due to personal challenges, were unable to understand the landlord’s communications or to participate in any meetings. She queried whether alternative arrangements had been made in consideration of this.  
18. The landlord stated that 25 residents had attended the consultation meeting of January 2019 and there had been discussions on the positive and negative aspects of the proposed project. They had agreed some changes to the regional plan and confirmed that there would be an external evaluation of the project. The representative objected to the landlord’s claims and stated that there had been seven residents at the meeting and she also had an ongoing petition in support of her assertions. 
19. The landlord stated that a steering group had been set up during the meeting, as requested by the residents and it understood that they had held five meetings since February 2019. The representative agreed that the resident was part of the steering group, but he and all the residents had signed a petition stating that they no longer wanted a steering group. The landlord had archived this petition and she was asking for it to be reinstated.
20. The landlord stated that the project had been trialled in another block and it had received no negative feedback from the residents. As the charity involved in the project had not worked with it in this trial it was unaware of the outcome. Residents in the initial trial block had provided positive feedback, though it was found that the health conditions of most of the residents and size of the block made it unsuitable for the project.
21. The representative disputed the landlord’s claims, stating that she had been informed by family members of some residents that they were not happy with the project, this had also been confirmed by the charity. She was not happy that it was now being trialled in the resident’s block, she had requested copies of any risk and health assessments conducted but this had not been provided. The landlord stated that it had commissioned an independent evaluation and would share the findings when it was completed.
22. The landlord stated it was monitoring the project by requesting reports from the charity and its management organisation (ALMO). This included the submission of incident reports for significant events which could not be shared due to data protection requirements or published, but it acted on the reports. The representative responded that she had noted all incidents occurring, as older residents had discussed this with her, and she was waiting to see how the landlord would deal with them. She felt that the allocations had not been properly decided and the young people did not understand how to relate with the elderly, thus were putting them in danger. 
23. The landlord stated that there had been issues with repairs requested by the resident which it had not handled appropriately. However, this had not occurred due to it housing a young resident in the property above. The representative responded that the leak in the property occurred due to the landlord undertaking works to the property above in order to accommodate the young person.
24. The landlord confirmed that it had no plans for building a play area at the block but would install raised flower beds in the rear garden for the use of all residents. The representative was happy with this but stated that she had witnessed a children’s party during which some children were playing very noisily in the garden, which was disturbing elderly sick residents trying to sleep.
25. The landlord referred to clause 9 of its Allocations Policy which provides that it may offer supported housing to young people if required. The representative responded that the tenancy agreement states that the resident would be informed of any changes, but this had not been done and she considered it a breach of his agreement. As the block was for the housing of elderly persons, a risk assessment should have been undertaken and the resident notified about the proposed project in advance.
26. The landlord acknowledged that it had missed opportunities to properly communicate its plans with all residents and receive their feedback. It apologised for the issues this had caused, as the resident felt that he had not been listened to. The representative responded that residents were not given the opportunity to consider the project and she was happy to contact the relatives of all 40 residents of the block who she was already communicating with, in order to discuss the issue.
27. The landlord apologised for some negative experiences that the representative had had in communicating with its staff members as well as staff members of the charity and asked her to inform it about any further occurrences. She noted her dissatisfaction with a staff member of the council.
28. The landlord mentioned that the representative had provided positive feedback about another staff member. It stated that residents had been very happy to communicate with this staff member and the general feedback was that they all wanted the issues to be resolved. The representative agreed that the staff member was committed to the wellbeing of the older residents. However, she maintained that appropriate checks had not been undertaken. She had their signatures on the petition and they were all against the continuation of the project.
29. The landlord stated that the representative had raised useful issues regarding ‘security, visitors, staff visibility, decisions and activities.’ It was its intention to create an action plan for the improvement of the trial project which would reflect the suggestions of the representative and ensure that residents felt listened to. It outlined some points to be included in the action plan. It also agreed to her suggestion of organising a fun event at the block in the new year. It would provide funding if the representative were able to execute this. If she were satisfied with its suggestions it would have a staff member contact her to plan the event.
30. The representative stated that prior to an event being organised, she wanted to prove to the council that her points were factual. This was regarding meeting attendance, lack of one-on-one meetings, risk assessments, and safety forms which had not been completed. She wished to arrange a date to meet with signatories to the petition to discuss the issues and was requesting a date to have this meeting with the landlord, residents, and their carers. She felt that the basic rights of the elderly residents, as provided by law, had been violated by the landlord. 
31. On 19 December 2019, the landlord provided an email in response to the representative’s queries regarding the project, which had been raised during the meeting of 9 December 2019 and in her later email. The main points, and the representative’s responses to each point have been detailed in paragraphs below.
32. In her response of the same day, the representative queried aspects of the landlord’s email and stated that she thought that there should have been safeguarding checks and risk assessments prior to the project being implemented. She could not find any responses to the issue of the petition by the residents and wanted to know the outcome. She stated that most residents signed the petition as they were unhappy that young people would continue to be accommodated in the block. 
33. The landlord explained that it would prepare another response on the two issues after Christmas. It, however, provided her with a web link on petitioning the council, as it clarified that this was determined at corporate level and not within individual services. In her email to the landlord of 23 December 2019, the representative queried why there were more young people moving into the block. She raised other issues regarding the meeting attendance numbers and a risk assessment not having been carried out. She was not happy that another young person had moved into a flat close by the resident’s property as she felt that an elderly resident should have been moved there instead. 
34. In an email of 5 January 2020, the representative raised issues about a children’s party which took place in the communal gardens, apparently organised by one of the project families. She stated that the children where unsupervised and the elderly residents should have had advance warning as they could have been in danger of accidents.
35. The resident continued to experience noise nuisance from his neighbour in the flat above and the representative reported this to the landlord. It decided to move the young resident to another property after 3 February 2020 when an alternative accommodation would be ready, but this was delayed. The representative continued to chase the landlord for a date for the move and it explained that there were data protection implications which meant that it could not disclose all the details to her. This was a matter being jointly handled by the landlord and the charity. The reports of incidents continued in January and February 2020 until she was moved.
36. In an email, of 29 January 2020, the landlord advised that it would be taking forward the agreed action plans regarding the complaints. There would be further action plans following interactions with the steering group and other residents and it hoped that the resident would participate in the process. As enquiries on the issue had been completed, the representative was now able to make a formal complaint to the council and would be advised about how it should be dealt with. It also provided her with a link to its complaints procedure.
37. On 20 April 2020, the representative made a formal complaint to the landlord in which she reiterated the issues she had raised previously to the council regarding the project and its impact on the elderly residents. She stated that the project had resulted in considerable noise in the block; rubbish being left in corridors; shouting and arguments by the young people’s partners when they visit; and cannabis use in the building, amongst other issues.
38. The representative stated that her father had lived in the block for more than 20 years and it was a better place to live in prior to the commencement of the project. She was escalating the matter following her report as no action had been taken.
39. In its response of 30 April 2020, to the complaint the landlord stated that it had investigated the matter with the cooperation of the council and the charity. With respect to the issue of noise nuisance it specifically referred to reports made by the representative with respect to another resident of the block and not her father. The landlord explained how it had dealt with the matter, noting it had spoken to other residents and there were no further reports regarding the perpetrator. 
40. The landlord stated that in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, it had ensured that its staff members in supported housing had full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). It was sourcing face masks for residents but was not offering testing as this was not being undertaken by government, this was available to care homes which the block was not. There was a low number of viewings and social distancing was maintained during this. It advised the representative to reduce her visits to the block as face-to-face contact with residents, other than her father, was a violation of government regulations.
41. The landlord advised that the issues of risk assessments and consultation with respect to the project had been adequately dealt with by the council in its correspondence to the representative of December 2019 and January 2020. It clarified that a personal risk assessment had been conducted for all residents of the block and stated that a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was attached. It concluded that she could request the escalation of her complaint to stage two of its procedure or contact the council for an independent review.
42. In May 2020 there were reports of a resident having gang–related visits. The landlord discussed this and contacted the Police for further information on its investigations. The representative contacted this Service in May 2020 to report that she had made several complaints regarding ASB by the resident’s neighbours to the landlord, but no action had been taken. Following contact by this Service the landlord wrote to the representative and advised that she could request the escalation of the complaint as stated in its stage one decision.
43. In her response of 19 May 2020, the representative referred to the queries which she had sent to the council and stated that it had not provided information which she had requested. She had only received the EIA from the landlord in the last two weeks, but it was neither dated nor signed. It had also not provided adequate responses to her further queries on the EIA. She stated that there had been a continuation of issues which she had been reporting since December 2019. She had been informed that her complaint had gone to stage two, but she did not recall making that request, but she also stated that this was not a new complaint.
44. The representative stated she had become aware that some of the young residents had gang affiliations and were being visited by gang members, but the landlord had not dealt with this. The resident and others in the block were concerned and she feared for their safety.
45. In its response of 27 May 2020, the landlord requested that the resident confirm the complaint to be escalated was the same one for which she had received a response on 30 April 2020. It asked that she provide details of outstanding issues and requested clarification on the assessment documents she was seeking.
46. The representative stated that she was seeking Safety, Risk, and Impact assessments which she had requested several times from the council. She stated that a petition regarding the project was missing and she would reattach it. There had not been adequate information and consultation with all residents and their families. She stated that the landlord had not provided responses when she requested it or had provided inadequate responses. She had been informed in a telephone call by a staff member of the landlord that the matter had been escalated to stage two after contact by the Ombudsman.
47. The representative stated that the resident had been a victim of noise nuisance approximately ten months previously. Herself and another person, advocating for the residents, had sent more than 500 emails to the landlord since December 2019. She had not been made aware that some of the young residents were gang affiliated which was a risk.
48. On 10 June 2020, the representative informed the landlord that the resident had reported finding his peach tree ruined as all the fruit had been pulled off and the tree was damaged. He assumed that this had been done by children playing in the garden. She requested that the landlord advise residents that their visitors should supervise children. In its response of the same day the landlord agreed to write to the residents about this and to remind them of their responsibilities as tenants.
49. In its final decision, of 30 June 2020, the landlord stated that the representative had been provided with a copy of its EIA as requested in the stage one complaint. It had also advised her about the availability of other assessments in an email of 21 January 2020. It informed her that the support plans for individual residents would not be shared with her for data protection reasons. It had undertaken a consultation process regarding the project both before and during the trial and the resident had been invited to participate in the steering group. 
50. The landlord stated that it had found no evidence of its staff members not contacting the representative, on the contrary they had been consistent in responding to communications from her. It clarified that some of the reports of noise nuisance could not be categorised as such, as they were within normal sound levels. It had dealt with issues specific to individual residents according to their need and addressed the behaviour of a young resident. It had also taken action to reduce the transfer of household noise, including having discussions regarding visitors, and this resulted in positive change. The project did not include residents with gang affiliations. 
51. The landlord concluded that it had dealt with the issues appropriately and perceived from the complaints that the representative objected to the project at a more general level. It was not clear about what outcome she was seeking.
52. The representative objected to the points made by the landlord in its final decision. She stated that she had not been provided with a copy of the EIA, but it was merely referred to. She had also requested for copies of the landlord’s Risk and Safety Assessments which should have been completed prior to the resident moving into the property to ensure its suitability for elderly residents, but the landlord did not respond to this request. It provided a Diversity Assessment which was neither dated nor signed.
53. The representative disputed the landlord’s assertions of carrying out a consultation process. It sent a questionnaire to residents which they completed. The landlord had held a couple of meetings with the steering group but there was no consultation or follow up meetings since July 2019. She maintained that she had proof of emails being consistently ignored and was happy to send this evidence to the landlord. She stated that residents continued to experience noise from a particular resident and recorded this and had attached it to her response to the landlord. She also advised that, although most of the young residents were not gang-affiliated, they had partners or visitors who were, and this posed a danger to other residents and their carers.

Assessment and findings

54. The allocation of housing is a matter which is dealt with by the council in its capacity as a local authority and not as a housing provider. The project was embarked upon by the council in its capacity as a local authority in discharge of its duties to provide housing for homeless people and support for vulnerable young people. This is evident in the council’s Service Specific document on the project which has been provided to this Service. Therefore, the aspects of this case relating to the conception, assessment and implementation of the project are matters which concern the council as a local authority and not as a housing provider.
55. It is not clear to this Service why the representative did not receive the copy of the EIA attached by the landlord in its stage one complaints decision. Nonetheless, issues regarding any assessment documents requested by the representative with respect to the project, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction also, as the local authority was the source of the project. This includes her dissatisfaction with the document having no date and signature. With respect to Risk and Safety assessments conducted prior to the resident taking up his tenancy, this Service is unable to investigate this aspect of the case.
56. These matters are within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider. As this Service has no jurisdiction over the allocation of accommodation by local authorities it has not considered how the allocation process was conducted. The investigation of this complaint has been limited to the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s complaints about how it considered his reports on the impact of the presence of young residents in the block, mainly with respect to ASB, and communication on the project.
57. It must be noted, however, that the council did not always make this distinction in providing its decision on the issues as it provided responses covering both housing and local authority functions. However, this Service is not at liberty to dispense of these distinctions in considering the issues as it would amount to making decisions on matters over which it has no authority.
58. In light of the above, this report will not assess any issues regarding reports or complaints made by the representative to the charity which has been part of the placement of the young residents and the running of the project. This is because the role of this Service is to consider complaints regarding the actions of landlords which are members of the Scheme. It is not able to consider the handling of reports or complaints made to organisations providing a service in partnership with the landlord excepting where these organisations have acted as an agent of the landlord, rather than in their own capacity. 
59. The submission of a petition to the council, of which the resident was a signatory, has been discussed in narrating events in this case. This is, however, another issue which is for the council to consider as a local authority, as the petition was regarding the process of consultation for and implementation of the project. As such, the handling of the petition by the council has not been assessed.  
60. In sending documents to this Service on the issues, the representative has sent in copies of correspondence between the landlord and another resident of the same block. Although the representative was copied in by both parties, this assessment does not include the contents of emails relating to third parties. It is noted, however, that some of the emails narrate incidents of communal noise disturbance and ASB which has also impacted on the resident.
61. The representative has sent this Service information on reports of ASB made by another resident to the landlord. It is for the landlord and the complainant to communicate regarding the complaint or for the representative to pursue the issue with the landlord where she represents the complainant. While it is noted that it is on similar issues raised in this complaint it remains a separate complaint by another individual on their specific experience, thus, has not been assessed in this report. This is the same for all other issues relating to third parties.
62. The representative has provided further communications with the landlord in which she has discussed several repairs required to the communal areas. She has also reported issues regarding a resident using a part of the garden as a plot as well as using it to socialise and smoke weed. The communal library has also been converted to a children’s play area. She reported that the block is not being adequately maintained and states that the former library has become a source of danger as the window is often left open overnight.
63. These are issues which the landlord should consider further and deal with as maintenance matters. It should provide communication to the residents or their representatives regarding how it intends to resolve the issues of outstanding communal repairs and maintenance.
64. Some of the correspondence sent to this Service show that there had been ongoing complaints of ASB being perpetrated by a resident of the block who is not one of the young residents and therefore not part of the project. This indicates that it may be a more effective strategy if the landlord deals with reports of specific incidents of ASB. This would ensure that it identifies perpetrators and provides a proportionate action on a case-by-case basis. It would appear that this is the same resident whose use of a plot in the back garden, and associated ASB, was raised after the complaint being considered by this Service had been concluded. The landlord would therefore have to deal with this matter as a specific report and respond to the resident.
65. This Service notes again that the pilot project was managed by the council in its capacity as a local authority, as part of its duties in handling homelessness. Therefore, it is for the housing team to feedback issues which may not have been considered in the trial to the appropriate department. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to feedback any challenges of its residents to the council. This would ensure that all residents and their representatives were able to fully participate in awareness and consultation meetings which could have included using interpreters where necessary. Nonetheless, it is ultimately for the council to take any required action in implementing the project in its role as a local authority.
66. The representative made suggestions for the resolution of the issues which she had reported on behalf of the resident, which would also improve the implementation of the project. These are as follows:

1. Use of noticeboards to introduce staff, activities and Ideas
2. A process for signing in visitors
3. Making sure that laundry and other communal spaces are well kept
4. More presence on site from [the charity]
5. Ensuring that new neighbours are introduced to each other

6. More regular catch ups and meetings about the trial between residents and staff-shared decision-making about any changes
7. More opportunities to meaningfully bring older and younger people together

67. As already stated in this report, it is not for this Service to determine whether the project should have been implemented or to investigate the manner of its commencement by the council. The focus of this assessment is to consider whether the landlord took appropriate action to deal with specific issues raised by the resident.
68. The landlord is tasked with dealing with any reports about issues on its management of the property. It expressed its willingness to include these suggestions in an action plan and followed this up with an email stating that it would put together the action plan, having included suggestions from the steering group. It, therefore, demonstrated that it was its intention to take requisite action for the resolution of the issues reported.
69. A staff member of the charity did clarify to the representative, in an email of 29 November 2019, that it would be helpful to separate out her various complaints as some issues were being ‘met at the strategic level’. It was further clarified that there had been no information to the effect that visits by a co-parent would be limited to once a month. The resident was further advised to contact the charity directly for operational or daily issues.
70. It is not clear to this Service if the landlord provided the same clarification to the representative and resident as the charity did. This would have been necessary so as to prevent the situation in this complaint where all issues were being reported, and complaints made to the local authority, landlord and charity all at once, leading to an unwieldy and protracted complaints process.
71. The landlord’s stage one decision clarified that the representative could request escalation of the complaint. There is no evidence that she did so prior to her contact with this Service. The landlord escalated her complaint when it was contacted by this Service and referred her to its process as stated in its stage one decision. The representative then objected to the escalation, stating that she had not requested it. As she also stated that the issues, she was raising were a continuation, it was reasonable that the landlord did consider her contact with this Service as an indication that she wanted an escalation. Its actions were appropriate and in line with its Complaints Policy. 
72. It is common for ASB cases to persist for several months as landlords would often engage in several measures, outlined in their policies, to resolve issues between the neighbours. In similar cases this normally includes actions like attempting mediation, installing equipment to assess the level of noise, and monitoring the situation to ascertain the level, frequency and severity of actions reported.
73. The landlord dealt with the reports of noise nuisance by the resident’s neighbour who was a young resident. According to the evidence provided to this Service the resident first reported issues with noise by his neighbour in September 2019. The landlord worked with the charity to relocate the neighbour, and this was completed within five months of the resident first reporting the incidents. This Service finds that the landlord’s actions in dealing with this aspect of the case was reasonable. However, as the main focus of the complaints was on the implementation of the intergenerational living project, sufficient attention has not been given to the handling of the reports of communal ASB.
74. The landlord endeavoured to respond to specific issues of ASB raised by the representative in several emails. However, this has not been a properly coordinated effort mainly due to the issues being reported as having occurred due to the project. This Service finds that the landlord should have directed the representative on issues within its remit as a landlord and ensured that she directed all other matters for the local authority to the appropriate office. This is in addition to clarifying that communal matters would be dealt with separately from incidents affecting individual residents.  
75. While this was a minor shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, to the extent that it did not provide clear direction to the representative, this Service concludes that these were not of a level as to constitute service failure in the circumstances of this case. It was its duty to ensure that the local authority was aware of any direct negative impacts of the project on the resident, however, the representative wrote to all parties involved in the project very frequently, so it is evident that the local authority was constantly aware of all the issues reported.

Determination (decision)

76. Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with respect to handling of issues reported by the resident in relation to the impact on him, by the implementation the project.

Reasons

77. The landlord was part of the team implementing the project, but the local authority was the main decision maker as it embarked on the project in discharge of its statutory duties.
78. The landlord is responsible for dealing with ASB reports and attempted to resolve issues reported to it, however, these were consistently linked to the project.
79. The landlord created an action plan in order to deal with issues within its remit, whilst giving proper direction to the resident on its ASB handling process.

Recommendations

80. The landlord should consider writing to the resident to clarify its role and responsibilities as well as the extent of its powers with respect to the project. It should also clarify its ASB procedure, how it deals with reports of incidents experienced by individuals and how these could be distinguished from communal issues.
81. The landlord should consider arranging to meet with the resident (or the representative) to discuss the present situation with ASB and measures to resolve any ongoing issues.